Chapter 17

In contrast to the tolerant attitude towards those with valid excuses who participated with their hearts and emotions despite being unable to participate with their actions, we find a position of severity and reprimand towards those who stayed behind from the battle itself without a Sharia-compliant excuse. This is seen in the story of the three who missed the Battle of Tabuk: Ka'b ibn Malik, Murarah ibn al-Rabi' al-Umari, and Hilal ibn Umayyah al-Waqifi (1). ¶

This resulted from moments of human weakness, preferring rest over fatigue, shade over the heat, and staying behind over traveling, despite them being sincere believers. Faith awakened in their souls shortly after the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) departed, and they realized they had committed a grave sin by staying behind from him and the believers. Nevertheless, their punishment was harsh and painful; they were completely isolated from society, the believers avoided them entirely, and people were forbidden from speaking or conversing with them for fifty days. Even their wives were ordered to be separated from them, in terms of residence and companionship. Despite the intense boycott, we do not find that any of them leaned towards the words of the hypocrites or took them as confidants instead of the believers. Nor did we find any of them responding to the invitation of the ruler of Ghassan, who heard the news and wanted to exploit the opportunity by inviting one or all three of them to him; instead, his letter was burned in the fire because the spark of faith was ignited in their souls. In this story, we find true unity in word and deed, and strict adherence to the command of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) to boycott those ordered to be boycotted, even if they were the closest of kin. This trait is the very essence of loyalty and enmity for the sake of Allah. No Muslim attempted to talk to those men secretly or stealthily, due to their firm belief that Allah knows the treachery of the eyes and what the breasts conceal. The failure of three individuals out of thirty thousand mujahideen to join had no direct impact on the outcome or nature of the battle, but the issue is greater than that, as it concerns the principle of participation and commitment to the concept of faith, and it is not permissible for a Muslim to... ¶

Transitioning from actual participation to mere heartfelt and emotional participation is not permissible unless there are compelling shariah-based reasons for it. As for abandoning actual, verbal, and heartfelt participation, this cannot happen from a Muslim who is sincere in his affiliation with Islam. It is not permissible for a believer, sincere in his faith, to lag behind in a duty required of him, or to be content with personal comfort while his brothers are suffering, or to indulge in pleasures and luxury while his brothers are grieving. This is the hallmark of faith and the enduring nature of a believer; he is an individual within a collective, a part of a whole, and a member of one body. What affects this collective affects him by priority, and what benefits this collective benefits him. Luxury has no meaning or value amid the nation's misery and suffering, and comfort holds no delight while people are struggling and in distress. Neglecting one's duty is a deficiency in faith, a flaw in religion, and a sin that requires repentance and returning to Allah Almighty (1). ¶

Therefore, the believer’s conscience and living sense of responsibility drive him toward that duty by an authority from within himself, not from without. Take the example of Abu Khaythama (may Allah be pleased with him): after the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had set out for the Battle of Tabuk—some mention of which has passed—he entered upon his family on a day of intense heat. He found his two wives in their sheds in his garden; each had sprinkled her shed with water to increase the coolness, cooled water, and prepared food for him. When he entered, he stood at the door of each shed and looked at his wives and what they had prepared for him. ¶

He said to himself: 'The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) is in the heat of the sun, the wind, and the scorching weather, while Abu Khaythama remains in a cool shade, with prepared food and beautiful wives in his estate? This is not fairness (3). By Allah, I will not enter the shed of any of you until I catch up with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ).' He asked them to prepare supplies for him, and they did so; then he set out in pursuit of the Messenger (ﷺ) until he reached him. ¶

When he arrived at Tabuk, he recited poetry on the way regarding this occasion, from which we mention the following: I left behind at al-Arish, Khadhib and some choice palm trees, whose roots were well-watered. And whenever a hypocrite doubted, I would incline my soul toward the religion, wherever it headed.(1) Indeed, a true Muslim feels his heart tighten regarding his food, drink, and dwelling, even while he is free and unfettered, if his brothers are struggling in a state of misery, wretchedness, and hardship. The example of Abu Khaythama, Uthman bin Maz'un (may Allah be pleased with him), is noteworthy when he entered Makkah under the protection (jiwar) of al-Walid bin al-Mughirah. When Uthman saw the suffering endured by the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and his companions, while he would come and go under the security of al-Walid bin al-Mughirah, Uthman said: "By Allah, for me to come and go in safety under the protection of a polytheist, while the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and his companions are suffering afflictions and harm in the path of Allah that do not befall me, is a grave deficiency in my soul." So, Uthman went to al-Walid bin al-Mughirah and said: "O Abu Abd Shams! The time of your protection has passed. I was under your protection, but I have chosen to leave it and join the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, for in him and his companions there is an exemplar for me." Al-Walid said: "O nephew, have you been harmed or insulted?" He said: "No, but I am content with the protection of Allah and do not wish to seek protection from anyone else." Al-Walid said: "Then go to the mosque and publicly renounce my protection, just as I publicly granted it to you." He went to the mosque, and al-Walid said: "This is Uthman bin Maz'un; he has come to renounce my protection." Uthman said: "He has spoken the truth, for I have found him to be loyal and noble, but I have chosen not to seek protection from anyone other than Allah, the Almighty and Majestic." He then attended a gathering of the Quraysh where Labid was reciting: "Indeed, everything except Allah is false." Uthman said: "You have spoken the truth." Then he said: "And every blessing must inevitably perish." Uthman said: "You have lied." Labid said: "O assembly of Quraysh, our gatherings were not like this." Then, a fool among them stood up. (1) See: Al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah by Ibn Kathir, Vol. 5, p. 8. ¶

Thus, Uthman bin Maz'un was struck on his eye, leaving a mark, to which some said to him: 'You were under a strong protection and were in no need of what has befallen you.' Uthman replied: 'The protection of Allah is more secure and more honorable.' ¶

This is what the righteous predecessors (al-salaf al-salih) did, and what every zealous Muslim does in our present era. Regardless of how much the Ummah deviates from the straight path, it is never devoid of goodness. This sentiment was expressed by the contemporary Muslim, Issam al-Attar, in a poem from which we excerpt the following: ¶

'I find no rest, even if my bed were soft, even if I were in the shadows of the towering trees. While behind prison walls there are brave men, tortured by the hands of every tyrant and renegade. I wish for the prison-lay among you, upon the rocks, in an atmosphere of suffocating oppression. The hardness of the prison floor, if it means being among you, is more beloved and desirable to me than the softest of cushions.' ¶

Seventh: One of the manifestations of al-muwalat (loyalty/alliance) for the sake of Allah is that Muslims should be like a single body; when one limb complains of pain, the entire body responds with sleeplessness and fever. This was realized during the era of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and during the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs after him. Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) used to say: 'To rescue a single Muslim man from the hands of the disbelievers is more beloved to me than the entire Arabian Peninsula.' It is narrated that one of the Muslim soldiers was taken prisoner by the Romans, and they carried him off to their emperor. ¶

He who tried to force him to abandon his Islam, but the Muslim prisoner refused and remained steadfast in his belief. The Emperor grew furious and ordered that his eyes be gouged out. Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz heard of this and wrote to the King of the Romans, saying: 'Amma ba'd (After praising Allah). I have been informed of what you did to the Muslim prisoner. I swear by Allah, if you do not send him to me immediately, I shall send an army against you whose vanguard will be with you and whose rearguard will be with me.' ¶

When the letter arrived, the King of the Romans retreated in the face of this resolve and ordered the Muslim prisoner to be returned to his family and people (1). The position of al-Mu'tasim (2) is a manifestation of 'Muwala' (loyalty and support) for the sake of Allah. He was the eighth Caliph of the Abbasid state and the hero of Amorium, who set the supreme example in that battle for restoring dignity and defending the territories of the Muslims. As some historians have mentioned, the story of Amorium is as follows: The Roman King 'Theophilus' raided the borders of the Abbasid state, specifically 'Zabatra'—the birthplace of al-Mu'tasim—as well as 'Malatya' and other Muslim fortresses. He took a group of Muslim men, women, and children as prisoners and mutilated them; he gouged out their eyes, cut off their noses and ears, and killed some of them. Among the prisoners was a Hashimite woman upon whom this injustice weighed heavily and whose agony became unbearable. She cried out at the top of her voice, 'Wa Mu'tasimaah!' (Oh, Mu'tasim!). Some of those present conveyed this cry to al-Mu'tasim. As soon as it reached his ears, he shouted at the top of his voice in the council and rose up, repeating, 'Labbayk, Labbayk (I am here, I am here), oh my sister!' ¶

He ordered a general mobilization, summoned the judges and witnesses, and had them witness his will: that if he were to be martyred in this battle, his wealth should be divided into three parts—one-third for charity, one-third for his children, and one-third for his freedmen. He set out himself with his finest commanders and men in the year 223 AH and besieged Amorium, which was the 'eye' of Christianity, the center of its power, and the birthplace of Theophilus, the Byzantine emperor. He conquered it after a severe siege, despite the fortification of its walls and the strength of its archers, until it crumbled before him. Al-Mu'tasim took vengeance upon the enemies of God for those among the Muslim men and women whom they had persecuted, restoring the dignity of the Islamic Ummah. He demonstrated what the wrath of a Muslim ruler is like when the sanctity of the faith is violated or the defense of Islam and the Muslims is infringed upon. He returned to Baghdad proclaiming the greatness and oneness of God, and the Ummah received him with joy and delight. Abu Tammam recited his famous poem: 'The sword is more truthful in reporting than books; in its edge lies the distinction between seriousness and play. Bright blades, not dark pages; upon their backs is the clearing of doubt and suspicion.' Among the lines from this poem: 'I answered a Zibatra call, for which I spilled the cup of slumber and the sweetness of Arab maidens.' And also from this poem: 'How many a cause for a veiled virgin was there in the severing of necks by these [swords].' Among such bright examples of loyalty and protective jealousy for the defense of Islam is the report that Hajjaj bin Yusuf al-Thaqafi became enraged at his governor in Sindh... ¶

severely, and this was because of a Muslim woman who was taken captive and brought to the lands of Sindh. Thus, he prepared consecutive armies and spent the wealth of the public treasury (Bayt al-Mal) until he rescued the woman and returned her to her family and her city (1). ¶

This was the state of the Muslims during their glorious era, the era of the 'single body'; if one part of it was attacked, the body would contract, tremble, and rise up in a frenzy that would destroy the enemies. But how vast is the difference between yesterday and today; how immense is the distance between the earth and the Pleiades! Today, millions of Muslims—men, women, and children—are screaming day and night in the east, west, north, south, and center of the world. They are crying out, both through their condition and their speech, 'Wa-Mu'tasamah!' (O Mu'tasim, come to our aid!), but alas, there is no one to answer! ¶

The poet Omar Abu Risha says: My Ummah, how many a bloody grief has choked the whispers of your glory in my mouth; You hear the wailing of the grieving and rejoice, and you watch the tears of the orphans and smile. How many cries of 'Wa-Mu'tasamah' have erupted, filling the mouths of orphaned young girls; They touched their ears, but they did not touch the honor of a Mu'tasim (2). ¶

Most Muslims today have become like a herd of cattle from which the butcher slaughters one by one, losing members of the herd every day, yet they continue to graze in complete tranquility, chewing their cud, and giving milk generously to the one who is sharpening the knife to slaughter them. The disbelievers in this era have become more loyal to each other than Muslims are to one another. This is not mere defamation; it is the reality. If a Jew, a Christian, or a Communist is attacked, the whole world rises in an uproar. But when the victim is a Muslim, we see excessive indifference from Muslims and the enemies of Islam alike. As evidence for what we are saying, we present some famous events for the sake of reflection. ¶

(1) See: Tarikh al-Umam wal-Muluk by al-Tabari, Vol. 10, p. 352 (Events of the year 224 AH). (2) See: Al-Da'wah Magazine (Saudi Arabia), Issue 815, Monday, 3/11/1401 AH, pp. 30-31. ¶

As a reminder, when the leaders of the Iranian revolution killed a Jewish merchant, Israel and the Jews in America, Russia, and Europe were up in arms. They imposed an economic, media, and military blockade on Iran. And when the Iranian government arrested fifty Crusaders and Jews in their country, the whole world was in an uproar. There was not a newspaper, magazine, radio station, or television news bulletin in the entire world that did not mention them morning and evening, providing exhaustive coverage and detailing the latest debates regarding them. The Crusaders and Jews did not stop there; rather, they mobilized their partners and agents inside and outside Iran to encircle that revolution and destroy it in its cradle. ¶

When a white British Christian farmer was killed in Rhodesia, Britain mentioned the circumstances, the trials, and the news reports about it in every single one of its news bulletins (1). In Poland, the Free Trade Union called for a strike in the Polish capital across more than thirty workplaces because the governmental authority had detained one of its printing workers, as this worker was a member of that organization (2). ¶

Are the disbelievers more loyal to their co-religionists than we, the Muslims, are to ours? This is indeed what is happening in our current reality. To be objective, we present one incident out of hundreds that demonstrate the extent of the oppression Muslims inflict upon one another, and their lack of mutual support (wala') for each other, both at the official and popular levels. It occurred on Friday (June 27, 1980), when at nine o'clock in the morning, twelve helicopters belonging to the 'Saraya al-Difa' (Defense Brigades), led by the criminal tyrant Rifaat al-Assad, landed at Hama airport and then proceeded to the Palmyra desert prison, where the cream of the Muslims was detained. (1) Radio London, Wednesday morning, 20 Dhu al-Hijjah 1400 AH, at 7:00 AM (local time). (2) Radio London, Tuesday morning, 26 Dhu al-Hijjah 1400 AH, at 7:00 AM (local time). ¶

They took the mujahideen out of the prison in their own special way and then opened fire on them, so they were all martyred. Those who witnessed the operation stated that their number was between eight hundred and one thousand, from among the finest of the people of Islam. They were then buried in the desert where they were killed, using two large bulldozers (1). This news, which bleeds the heart, brings tears to the eyes, and saddens the soul, has not been met with any comment or statement from media outlets that claim to be Islamic, nor from global media outlets that claim to uphold human rights—at a time when these outlets discuss news about cats, dogs, and rats. This confirms to us that the media throughout the world seems to operate under a single administration aimed at erasing the features of Islam, concealing its issues, and ignoring its rights and the rights of its people. ¶

If those who were martyred under the oppression of the infidel Nusayri regime were from the licentious artistic class afflicted with the madness of sexual lust, or were among those who carry their intellects in their feet—the athletes who are tossed around by the schemes of Jews and Christians just as they toss a ball—the audio, visual, and print media would have wept blood instead of tears for them. All media outlets in the lands of Islam and abroad would have unanimously eulogized them in a way that would deafen ears and stun listeners, and the agents of the Jews and Christians in international and private organizations would have mobilized to issue statements of condemnation and protest. But when the victims are sincere Muslims at the hands of Communism in Afghanistan, or at the hands of the Crusader Marxists in the Philippines, or at the hands of cow worshippers in India, or at the hands of the criminal Nusayri tyrant in Syria, the whole world remains silent toward those bloody events and ignores them, simply because the victims are the people of Islam. ¶

In fact, the Western media hostile to Islam has invented terms... ¶

It is a media campaign launched against the people of faith and Islam, with the intention of blinding Muslims across the world to the physical liquidations, brutal torture, and suffering their brothers are enduring in the East and West. They label Muslims who are zealous for Islam as 'right-wing extremists,' an attempt to categorize Muslims alongside Christians and paint them as agents of the West. At other times, they describe them as 'fanatical' or 'extremist' Muslims, misleading the listener into believing that these people deserve the killing and torture they face because they are not 'moderate Muslims.' If we were to ask these people, or their agents in Islamic lands, about the 'moderate Muslim' in their view, we would find them to be a Muslim who knows nothing of Islam except its name, and who is no different from Jews or Christians except in name and nominal affiliation—not in reality. This is the 'moderate Muslim' in the eyes of the enemies of Islam. ¶

Consequently, the 'moderate Muslim' in the eyes of Islam's enemies is not a Muslim according to the correct Islamic concept, because the Islam with which the enemies of Islam are pleased is not true Islam. Allah the Almighty says: 'And never will the Jews or the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion. Say, “Indeed, the guidance of Allah is the [only] guidance.” If you were to follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge, you would have against Allah no protector or helper' (Al-Baqarah: 120). ¶

Therefore, a Muslim must not believe the mouthpieces of the Jews and Christians, or those who revolve in their orbit, regarding the concepts and descriptions they label upon those working for Islam. Allah the Almighty says: 'O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate' (Al-Hujurat: 6). Rather, Muslims must be called by the names they give themselves, not by the labels given to them by the enemies of Islam. The enemies of Islam conspire against Islam and the Muslims through word and deed, and this is not strange coming from them. What is strange is that some who claim to be Muslim believe their words and actions. There is no power nor strength except with Allah. ¶

Chapter Two: Factors behind the weakening of allegiance (al-muwalat) for the sake of Allah and disavowal (al-mu'adat) for the sake of Allah ¶

This chapter consists of an introduction and five sections: ¶

Introduction: On defining the subject matter of this chapter. Section One: Ignorance and its relation to allegiance and disavowal. Section Two: Disagreement regarding a specific issue or secondary matters (furu'). Section Three: Withdrawal/seclusion from the Muslim community (jama'ah). Section Four: Claims of coercion regarding the failure to uphold allegiance and disavowal. Section Five: Agents who align themselves with enemies for personal interest. ¶

[blank page] ¶

Introduction: Defining the Subject of this Chapter ¶

A Muslim individual may be struck with astonishment, bewilderment, and distress when reviewing what was presented in the first chapter regarding 'loyalty and disavowal for the sake of Allah' (al-muwalat wal-mu'adat fi Allah) from an Islamic perspective, and comparing it to the current reality of Muslims in practice. One finds a vast chasm between the current reality of Muslims and what Muslims ought to be according to the requirements of the Book and the Sunnah. ¶

As a clarification of the factors that led to this deteriorating, painful, and sorrowful reality, we intended to identify and explain these key factors, hoping that we might avoid falling into those pitfalls that have torn the unity of Muslims apart, divided their ranks, and made some of them enemies to others. ¶

Meanwhile, the true enemy enjoys security, tranquility, and safety within the lands of Islam. ¶

And he is granted by the sons of the Muslims pure affection, love, support, and loyalty. He finds among the sons of the Muslims those who protect him, defend him, and fight to the death for his sake. This would not have been possible were it not for those erroneous concepts and deviant perceptions that turned the scales of allegiance and enmity upside down; thus, those affiliated with Islam befriended the enemies of Islam, and those affiliated with Islam became hostile towards the true followers of Islam. We have divided these factors into five main chapters. ¶

Chapter One: Ignorance (Jahl) and its Relationship to Loyalty (Muwala) and Enmity (Mu'adat). In the terminology of the theologians (Ahl al-Kalam), ignorance is defined as believing a thing to be contrary to what it truly is in reality, and it is divided into two categories: 1. Simple (Basit), 2. Compound (Murakkab). Simple ignorance is the absence of knowledge regarding something that one ought to possess. Compound ignorance is a firm conviction that does not correspond to reality. Many people confuse ignorance with error in terms of concepts and the resulting consequences, even though there is a clear distinction between the two. (Footnote 1): See Al-Mu'jam al-Wasit, Vol. 1, p. 144. Al-Raghib al-Isfahani (may Allah have mercy on him) stated that ignorance is of three types: First: The soul's lack of knowledge, which is the primary form. Second: Believing a thing to be contrary to what it is. Third: Doing a thing contrary to how it ought to be done; see Mufradat Alfaz al-Qur'an by Al-Raghib al-Isfahani, p. 102. ¶

A mistake (khata') is when one intends to perform a permissible action, but inadvertently falls into a prohibited act that was not intended, such as shooting an arrow at a bird in a forest and killing a human being without having intended to do so. ¶

This is distinct from ignorance (jahl), which is a form of negligence resulting from a failure to exert effort and utilize one's capacity in seeking the truth and following it. ¶

Both ignorance and mistake are culpable in terms of the crime of 'lack of verification' (adam al-tathabbut), yet the punishment for this is not equivalent to the punishment for a crime committed without the presence of such a mistake or ignorance. ¶

Mistake is divided into two categories: mistakes regarding the rights of Allah, and mistakes regarding the rights of servants (human beings). ¶

As for a mistake regarding the rights of Allah, the Lawgiver (al-Shari') has made it an excuse, provided that the person who made the mistake exerted all possible effort in verifying the matter. ¶

As for a mistake regarding the rights of human beings, it is not an excuse; therefore, the one who causes damage by mistake is liable for the value of what was destroyed. Thus, in the case of accidental killing, blood money (diyah) is imposed as compensation for the harm suffered by the heirs of the deceased. Consequently, the punishment is mitigated from retribution (qisas) to a lightened blood money as a result of the existence of the mistake. ¶

As for ignorance, the one who is ignorant may be excused in matters that remain hidden from many people; however, they are held accountable for their negligence in failing to research and inquire. Allah the Almighty says: 'So ask the people of the Reminder if you do not know.' Ignorance, like mistake, is divided into categories: some relate to the rights of Allah, and some relate to the rights of people. ¶

If the ignorance pertains to a right of Allah Almighty, such as the status of permissibility or prohibition, then the individual is not held accountable until the evidence reaches them. Muslim (1) narrated in his Sahih from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) that a man gifted the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) a waterskin of wine (2). The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) asked him, 'Do you know that Allah has forbidden it?' He replied, 'No.' Then he whispered to a person. The Prophet (ﷺ) asked, 'What did you whisper to him?' He said, 'I ordered him to sell it.' The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, 'He who forbade its consumption also forbade its sale.' He then opened the waterskin until all that was in it flowed out. ¶

Regarding this, Al-Nawawi states: Perhaps the Messenger of Allah’s (ﷺ) question about his knowledge of the prohibition was to determine his situation. Had he known it was forbidden, he would have rejected his gift and disciplined (ta'zir) him for it. When he informed him that he was ignorant of that, he excused him. This is evidence that whoever commits a sin while ignorant of its prohibition bears no sin and is not subject to ta'zir (3). ¶

However, if the crime of the ignorant person involves the rights of people, the rule is that no one is excused for their ignorance, in order to protect the rights of others. Muslim narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: 'If people were given based on their claims, people would claim the blood and wealth of others; however, the oath rests upon the defendant' (4). Therefore, one who claims ignorance of the manifest matters in Islam, whether it pertains to the right of Allah or the rights of His servants, will not have such a claim accepted if they live in an Islamic environment. ¶

As for someone who is a recent convert to Islam or who grew up in a society where the majority of the population is non-Muslim, they may be excused for certain types of shirk (polytheism) if they fall into it unknowingly. The evidence for this is the request of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) for the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) to designate a 'Dhat Anwat' (a tree for seeking blessings) for them, just as the polytheists had a Dhat Anwat. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) then swore... ¶

It is like the story of the people of Moses, when they said: 'Make for us a god as they have gods.' There is no disagreement that those who said this did not know the ruling, but had they done so after being forbidden, they would have become disbelievers. From this, we deduce that if a Muslim speaks a word of disbelief without knowing that it is disbelief, then is alerted to it and immediately recants and repents, he does not become a disbeliever. ¶

As for the one who does not trouble himself to learn about Shirk (polytheism) nor hates it, and thus falls into it or supports those who commit it, he is sinful and at risk of exiting the fold of Islam, because he who is ignorant of Shirk cannot fulfill anything of what 'La ilaha illa Allah' (There is no god but Allah) implies. Whoever does not uphold the meaning of this phrase and what it indicates, with knowledge, certainty, truthfulness, sincerity, love, acceptance, and submission, has no part in Islam. Many people do not distinguish between what they have been commanded to do and what they have been forbidden from, nor between what is authentically reported from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and what is falsely attributed to him. They do not understand the reality of his intended meaning, nor do they seek to obey him; rather, they are ignorant of the truth he brought, glorifying their own purposes and whims, following their desires and pleasures. There is no doubt that Allah the Almighty did not excuse the people of Jahiliyyah (the pre-Islamic era)—who had no scripture—for the major Shirk they committed. The evidence for this is the Hadith of 'Iyad bin Himar, in which the Prophet (ﷺ) said: 'Verily, Allah looked at the people of the earth and was displeased with them, both Arabs and non-Arabs, except for some remnants of the People of the Book.' How then could Allah excuse a nation that has the Book of Allah in its midst, capable of reading it and understanding its contents? Allah the Almighty says: 'And We have certainly made the Qur'an easy for remembrance, so is there any who will remember?' It is Allah's proof against His servants, as He says: 'This is a message for mankind, that they may be warned thereby, and that they may know that He is but one God, and that those of understanding may take heed.' ¶

Sheikh Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him) says: 'Indeed, a person may become a disbeliever (kafir) because of a word they utter, and they may say it while being ignorant.' (End quote). ¶

He substantiates this with the hadith: 'Indeed, a man may speak a word from the pleasure of Allah, not thinking it would reach what it reached, but Allah records His pleasure for him until the day he meets Him. And indeed, a man may speak a word from the wrath of Allah, not thinking it would reach what it reached, but Allah records His wrath for him until the day he meets Him.' A person may become a disbeliever through a statement of disbelief or an act of disbelief, even if they themselves do not believe they have committed an act of disbelief (kufr), as occurred with the hypocrites during the Battle of Tabuk. Allah Almighty said: 'Do not make excuses; you have disbelieved after your belief.' These people assumed that what they did was not disbelief, but the verse is proof that when a man commits an act of disbelief, even if he does not know or believe that he is a disbeliever, he is not excused for it; rather, he becomes a disbeliever through his verbal or practical action. For this reason, one who insults Islam or its symbols (sha'a'ir) is a disbeliever a fortiori (by greater reason), even if he does not believe himself to be a disbeliever. ¶

Sometimes a person knows that a thing harms them yet they do it, or knows that a thing benefits them yet they abandon it, because that knowledge is countered by the urge within their soul for another pleasure or the desire to avoid another pain. Thus, they are ignorant and oppressive for prioritizing one over the other. This is why Abu al-Aliyah said: 'I asked the companions of Muhammad (PBUH) about the saying: "who commit evil out of ignorance," and they replied: "Everyone who disobeys Allah is ignorant."' And Allah Almighty said: 'And We have certainly created for Hell many of the jinn and mankind. They have hearts with which they do not understand, and they have eyes with which they do not see...' ¶

They have ears but do not hear with them; these are like livestock, nay, they are even more misguided. It is they who are the heedless (1). And it is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: 'Whomever Allah intends good for, He grants him understanding (fiqh) in the religion' (2). It is not permissible to attribute disbelief (kufr) to a specific individual unless the proof of communication and knowledge is established against him, the violation of which deems one a disbeliever (kafir), or at other times a sinner (fasiq) or disobedient (asi). This applies to hidden matters such as sorcery and spell-casting, regarding which it may be said that the person is mistaken and misguided. ¶

As for matters known to both the elite and the commoners among Muslims that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was sent to make mandatory, such as the five pillars of Islam, and things whose prohibition is manifest, such as adultery, alcohol, gambling, usury, and similar prohibitions and obligations, no one is excused for ignorance regarding them unless they are a recent convert to Islam (3). Based on this, not everyone who is ignorant of a matter of religion becomes a disbeliever. Some companions thought alcohol was permissible, such as Qudamah ibn Maz'un and his companions, as they understood from the verse in Surat al-Ma'idah that it was permissible for those who performed righteous deeds. Allah Almighty says: 'There is no sin upon those who believe and do righteous deeds for what they consume if they fear Allah and believe and do righteous deeds, then fear Allah and believe, then fear Allah and do good; and Allah loves the doers of good' (4). The scholars among the companions (may Allah be pleased with them), such as Umar, Ali, and others, agreed that they should be asked to repent; if they persist in declaring it lawful, they are deemed disbelievers, provided the evidence had reached them. They did not declare them disbelievers initially due to the doubt that arose for them until the truth was made clear to them. If they persisted after knowing the truth, they became disbelievers due to their denial and insistence (5). Consequently, whoever assists in abandoning an obligation, or in permitting a forbidden act from the manifest rites of Islam... ¶